Transcription

1 March 1, 2010 I. FIRM NEWS 1. On March 19, 2010 firm member, Thomas F. Gallagher, Esquire gave a presentation in Mount Laurel, New Jersey on relevant statutory immunities for community based youth sports organizations in the State of New Jersey. 2. Recently, Thomas Paschos & Associates, P.C. was successful in a number of litigation matters, and we would like to report to you on some of these victories. o In the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the firm secured a major defense victory on a motion for summary judgment in an ERISA matter, and subsequently successfully resolved the matter on appeal while it was pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. o The firm, on behalf of the manufacturer, secured the dismissal of a Philadelphia County products liability suit, and subsequently quashed Plaintiff s appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. o In a professional liability action brought in the New Jersey Superior Court, the firm secured summary judgment on behalf of two life insurance brokers and their agency. o In the New Jersey Superior Court, the firm secured a partial summary judgment, dismissing consumer fraud act claims and punitive damages claims against an insurance broker. o In the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the firm secured dismissal of a civil rights action against a private correctional facility and its warden. II. LEGAL MALPRACTICE LITIGATION Affidavit of Merit Not Always Required to be from a Licensed Professional Practicing in the Same Specialty In Scott v. Calpin, 2010 WL (D.N.J. March 2, 2010), a slip opinion, Defendant, an attorney licensed in New Jersey, represented Plaintiff Norman L. Scott in a divorce proceeding before the New Jersey Superior Court for a period of approximately ten day. Subsequent to the representation, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging professional malpractice against Defendant. Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Bruce P. Friedman, Esquire, an attorney licensed in the State of Pennsylvania who practices family law and has represented hundreds of divorce clients.

2 Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to acquire an Affidavit of Merit from an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New Jersey. Defendant argued that because N.J.S.A. 2A:56A-26, which defines licensed person for purposes of the Affidavit of Merit Statute, includes an attorney admitted to practice law in New Jersey, that therefore an Affidavit of Merit must be executed by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of New Jersey. Plaintiff acknowledged that Mr. Friedman is a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania but noted that N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 states the person executing the affidavit shall be licensed in this or any other state; have particular expertise in the general area of specialty involved in the action... for a period of at least five years. The court found that contrary to Defendant's position, the Affidavit of Merit Statute authorizes an appropriate licensed person to hold an out-of-state license. The court noted that if Defendant's reading of N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 were correct, that the licensed attorney opining in a legal malpractice case must be licensed in New Jersey, the phrase the person executing the affidavit shall be licensed in this or any other state would be read out of the statute. Rather, the court found it must give meaning to all of the words of a statute. The court noted that Defendant's confusion over the application of N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26, which defines licensed person under the Affidavit of Merit Statute, appeared to stem from the fact that the phrase licensed person is used both to define the class of persons where an Affidavit of Merit would be required to maintain an action for malpractice or negligence and to define the types of persons who may provide the Affidavit. The court held that although N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26(c) states that a licensed person, as used in the Affidavit of Merit Statute, means any person who is licensed as... an attorney admitted to practice law in New Jersey, this language did not require that any affidavit submitted in support of a legal malpractice action must be submitted by an attorney admitted to practice in New Jersey. Such a result would clearly conflict with the legislature's direction in N.J.S.A. 2A:53A- 27, which permits affidavits from a person licensed in this or any other state. Applying the factors of the Affidavit of Merit statute, the court found that Plaintiff satisfied the Affidavit of Merit Statute: Plaintiff produced an affidavit from an appropriately licensed attorney with over thirty years of experience in the areas of family law and divorce proceedings and who has attested to the reasonable probability that Defendant's representation of the Plaintiff fell below the acceptable standard of care required of attorneys in divorce proceedings. III. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY LITIGATION Affidavit of Merit from an Attorney Licensed in a Another State is Sufficient in a Legal Malpractice Case

3 In Jorden v. Glass, 2010 WL (D.N.J. March 5, 2010), a slip opinion, plaintiff filed suit based on defendants' allegedly negligent medical treatment of decedent's medical condition. Dr. Glass is a board certified psychiatrist who at the time of the decedent's death was conducting a Phase I Clinical Trial concerning the dosage and food effects of a new medicine for schizophrenic patients. Decedent was part of the clinical trial. Plaintiff alleged she was told the decedent had some kind of panic attack, seizure, or stroke at co-defendant Lourdes Medical Center. Plaintiff further alleged the decedent died, according to the death certificate, of acute myocardial infarction. Plaintiff filed suit to recover damages for the decedent's allegedly negligent medical treatment and lack of informed consent. On July 22, 2009, plaintiff served an affidavit of merit prepared by Joyce R. Rubin, M.D., doctor specializing in general internal medicine. Dr. Glass sought to dismiss plaintiff's claims because plaintiff's affidavits of merit were not prepared by a doctor who specializes in psychiatry. Dr. Glass argued that the complaint against him should be dismissed for failure to comply with N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41. Dr. Glass contended the statute requires plaintiff to obtain an affidavit of merit from a psychiatrist, specifically a psychiatrist who deals with phase I clinical trials, and because plaintiff obtained affidavits from an internist, the claims against Dr. Glass should be dismissed. Plaintiff opposed Dr. Glass's motion arguing his cause of action is not directed to Dr. Glass's specialty in psychiatry but rather to the general treatment of chest pains. Plaintiff argued that the only claim of medical malpractice that is brought against Dr. Glass relates to the treatment of the decedent's chest pains. Thus, plaintiff alleged because his medical malpractice claim is directed to the decedent's chest pains and not to how Dr. Glass conducted his psychiatric clinical trial, affidavits of merit authored by an internist is sufficient. Because Dr. Glass is board certified in psychiatry, the court was required to determine whether the care or treatment at issue involves the specialty of psychiatry. The court noted that this issue was recently addressed in two unpublished New Jersey Appellate Division cases. These cases held that there may be appropriate circumstances where a general practitioner is an appropriate licensed person to issue an affidavit of merit directed to the care provided by a specialist. The court did not accept the argument that regardless of the nature of plaintiff's medical malpractice claim that only a psychiatric specialist can address Dr. Glass's standard of care. The Court found that plaintiff's malpractice allegation, that the decedent's chest pains were not properly treated, fell under the general skill and knowledge of a general practitioner. Thus, the Court held that plaintiff submitted a competent affidavit of merit. IV. EMPLOYMENT LAW LITIGATION Individuals May be Held Liable Under the Family and Medical Leave Act

4 In Narodetsky v. Cardone Industries, Inc., 2010 WL (E.D.Pa. February 24, 2010), a slip opinion, Plaintiff Dmitry Narodetsky was employed by defendant Cardone Industries, for approximately twelve years. On or about August 19, 2009, plaintiff was diagnosed with a leg injury and was informed he would need surgery. Plaintiff's wife contacted defendant Kelly Stigelman, Cardone Industries' manager of health benefits, and informed her that plaintiff would need time off for the anticipated operation. During this conversation, plaintiff's wife requested that plaintiff be given short-term disability for the upcoming medical leave. On or about the next day, defendants conducted a forensic computer search of plaintiff's computer. Plaintiff alleged that defendants performed the search to find a reason that would justify his termination and thereby obviate the need to grant the requested leave. On or about August 31, 2009, plaintiff informed his supervisor that he would need to take ten days off from work following the surgery. On or about September 9, 2009, plaintiff was called into a meeting at which defendants Dan Bosworth, Shannon Sarracino and William Bond were present. They showed plaintiff an which they alleged he had forwarded to another employee in July At the meeting, he was terminated for allegedly sending this . Plaintiff filed a complaint against corporate defendant Cardone Industries, Inc. and five individual defendants-michael Cardone, Jr., William Bond, Kelly Stigelman, Shannon Sarracino and Dan Bosworth alleging, among other things, that defendants violated FMLA by interfering with his FMLA rights and retaliating against him after he provided notice to them about his need to take FMLA leave. Defendants' argued that plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to establish that the individual defendants are employers as that term is defined under the FMLA. The Family and Medical Leave Act makes it unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this subchapter. 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1). The FMLA defines employer in relevant part as any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer to any of the employees of such employer. The court noted that while the Court of Appeals has not addressed whether individuals may be held liable under the FMLA, the FMLA implementing regulations explain that [t]he definition of employer in the Fair Labor Standards Act similarly includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. As under the FLSA, individuals such as corporate officers acting in the interest of an employer are individually liable for any violations of the requirements of FMLA. 29 C.F.R (d). Furthermore, the court noted that courts in this Circuit have found individuals may be held liable under FMLA. The court found that plaintiff s allegations that defendants participated in the forensic search of his computer with the goal of finding a reason to justify his termination because he had requested FMLA leave were sufficient to state a claim against defendants. The court held that the facts plaintiff alleged supported a finding that each of the individuals is a person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer to any of the employees of such employer in accordance with 29 U.S.C. 2611(4)(A)(ii)(I). The court provided:

5 As the president, Cardone is a corporate officer with operational control over Cardone Industries' and is therefore an employer along with the corporation. It is reasonable to infer that Bond, Sarracino and Bosworth had authority to fire employees because it is alleged that they terminated plaintiff at the September 9 meeting. Furthermore, I find it is reasonable to infer that Stigelman also had the authority to terminate employees because it is alleged that she is a manager and fired plaintiff. The court held that plaintiff s allegations support an inference that each of the defendants exercised control over plaintiff in the decision to terminate him and, therefore, each defendant could be individually liable under FMLA. Copies of the full text of any of the cases discussed in this Newsletter may be obtained by calling our office. The articles contained in this Newsletter are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Thomas Paschos & Associates, P.C. (2011) All Rights Reserved.

June 1, 2011 I. EMPLOYMENT LAW Employer Must Show Economic Injury to Successfully Invoke Key Employee Exception Under the Family and Medical Leave Act In Johnson v. Resources for Human Development, Inc.,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE NANCY TAYLOR and CYRIL E. TAYLOR, No. 214, 2010 Plaintiffs Below- Appellants, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and v. for New Castle

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District STEVE AUSTIN, Appellant, v. JOHN SCHIRO, M.D., Respondent. WD78085 OPINION FILED: May 26, 2015 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Clinton County, Missouri

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION JOHN FRAZIER HUNT, : DECEMBER TERM, 2004 Plaintiff, : No. 2742 v. : (Commerce Program) NATIONAL

Filed 2/11/15 Estate of Thomson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. FABIO VERGARA, deceased, by the Administratrix of his Estate, Blanca Cardona,

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE March 10, 2010 Session MELINDA LONG, as Administrator of the Estate of Opal Hughes, v. HILLCREST HEALTHCARE - WEST, et al. Appeal from the Circuit Court

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,

Filed 1/9/02; pub. order 1/28/02 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE ISRAEL P. CHAMBI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE REGENTS OF

Case 2:06-cv-02631-SMM Document 17 Filed 04/13/07 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA JAMES BRETT MARCHANT, Plaintiff, 2:06-cv-02631 PHX JWS vs. ORDER AND OPINION [Re: Motion at

1 ERISA Causes of Action * ERISA authorizes a variety of causes of action to remedy violations of the statute, to enforce the terms of a benefit plan, or to provide other relief to a plan, its participants

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY NICOLE B. VERRASTRO, as Surviving ) Daughter of Bridget E. Verrastro, and ) CHRISTOPHER GIERY as the Executor of the ) Estate

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 0 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 17th day of October, 200, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2005-C -249 CHARLES ALBERT AND

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) CITY OF LINCOLN V. DIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION

CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656 12650. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the False Claims Act. (b) For purposes of this article: (1) "Claim" includes any

CAROL PRICE IN THE Plaintiff CIRCUIT COURT vs. FOR SINAI HOSPITAL OF BALTIMORE, INC. BALTIMORE CITY CASE NO.: 24-C-04-007323 Defendant MEMORANDUM This case comes before this Court on a Petition for Court

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 14 1449 BASHIR SHEIKH, Plaintiff Appellant, v. GRANT REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 15, 2000 Cornelia G. Clark Acting Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version

No. 2-14-1168 Order filed October 15, 2015 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule

NORGUARD INSURANCE, Individually and as Subrogee on behalf of K CAB COMPANY and K CAB COMPANY, vs Plaintiff CLASSY II, INC. dba THE WASHERY SYSTEM aka THE WASHERY CAR WASH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case 1:14-cv-00873-JLK Document 60 Filed 07/20/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No.: 1:14-cv-00873-JLK DEBORAH CARTER, v. Plaintiff,

RONALD WARRUM, in his capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOSEPH F. SAYYAH, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. No. 04-3753 UNITED STATES COURT

Medical Malpractice Reform 49 This Act to contains a clause wherein the state legislature asks the state Supreme Court to require a plaintiff filing a medical liability claim to include a certificate of

Filed 10/22/99 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE DILLON BOLTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, B123278 (Super. Ct. No. SC037295)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SETH ROBBINS, VERN COOLEY Plaintiffs, v. PHILADELPHIA SPORTS CLUB Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-2676 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM O

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION MICHAEL GLENN WHITE, et. al. Plaintiffs v. VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION; et. al., Defendants. Case No. 3:00CV386

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION JOHN I. GORDON, ESQUIRE v. MICHAEL O. PANSINI, ESQUIRE, et al. JUNE TERM, 2011 NO. 02241

Long Term Care & HeaLTH Care 360 www.mpplaw.com about our PraCTiCe morris Polich & Purdy LLP is one of the nation's leading law firms specializing in the representation of both long term care facilities

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO KATHY WACKER and BRYAN No. ED99789 WACKER, Appeal from the Circuit Court Appellants, of Cape Girardeau County vs. Hon. William L. Syler ST.

May, 2011 FRCP and Physician Testimony: Treating Physicians, Experts, and Hybrid Witnesses The US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, rules on these matters in the case of Goodman v. Staples the Office Superstore,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION PAM HOWARD and EBEN HOWARD ex rel UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFFS v. No. 4:13CV00310 JLH ARKANSAS CHILDREN S HOSPITAL;

Filed 10/4/13; pub. order 10/28/13 (see end of opn.) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO ASSEMBLERS, INC., D062406 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WORK COMP

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A10-1489 Barry H. Nash, Appellant, vs. James D. Gurovitsch,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ROGER HAUTH, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 00-166-JJF ROBERT P. LOBUE, ESQUIRE, Defendant. Kevin William Gibson, Esquire of Gibson & Perkins,

ATTORNEY HELP CENTER: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE The healthcare industry has exploded over the last thirty years. Combined with an increasing elderly population, thanks to the Baby Boomer generation, the general

NOTICE Decision filed 08/13/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140554-U NO. 5-14-0554

Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT

NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 140713-U NO. 4-14-0713

PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the

2015 IL App (1st) 141710-U SECOND DIVISION November 10, 2015 No. 14-1710 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : SAM STINSON, on his behalf : and on behalf of all persons : similarly situated, : : Plaintiffs : Civil Action File v.

Case :0-cv-000-JAT Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 WO Cindy Loza, et al, vs. Plaintiffs, Native American Air Ambulance, et al, Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA